106. Annex Two shows a list of documents, Government
and non-Government, which provide guidance on the issue of lighting
and light pollution. The ILE, the Society of Light and Lighting
(CIBSE), and the International Commission on Illumination (CIE)
have produced the most prolific amount of lighting guidance. The
ILE "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution"
has been used, copied and adapted by organisations and countries
around the world.[167]

107. The most comprehensive Government document on
the issues of lighting is "Lighting in the Countryside",
referred to earlier in the Report in the sections on street lighting.
The Government claim that their policy of raising awareness was
affirmed by the publication of this document which aimed to:

"minimise the intrusiveness of lighting
in the countryside. It is designed to provide practical advice
to local authorities, developers, professionals and members of
the public on: lighting design, products and standards; the effects
of lighting on people, wildlife and countryside character; preparing
and assessing the impacts of lighting schemes; how the planning
system can best promote good lighting practice; and good practice
for lighting schemes associated with particular types of development."[168]

108. Whilst this document is useful in both urban
and rural contexts, the title might discourage an urban local
authority from referring to it. We note that the document is now
out of print and only available online.[169]
The DEFRA consultation "Living Places - Powers, Rights, Responsibilities",
which is currently under consideration by the Government, asked
local authorities, householders and building developers whether
they considered that the guidance in "Lighting in the Countryside
needed updating. We recommend that the Government update "Lighting
in the Countryside" to take into account its relevance to
urban authorities and, bearing in mind the imminent investment
by local authorities into street light replacement, republish
and circulate the document accordingly.

109. The "Lighting in the Countryside"
guidance, together with the Department of Transport documents
and British Standards guidance constitute the Government's efforts
to raise awareness of the issue of light pollution and give advice.
Whilst it is possible that these documents might reach the right
people within local authorities, we fail to see how the Government
is taking steps to raise awareness of the issue of light pollution
amongst the 'rottweiler' security light buying general public.

110. The only controls over light pollution are by
use of the planning system. "Lighting in the Countryside"
advises local authorities to consider "including a policy
in relation to lighting in their development plans, and for supplementary
planning guidance to elucidate those policies". The Government
is unaware how many local authorities have followed this advice.[170]
In addition, three Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) deal
with lighting, whilst another two PPGs mention lighting in brief.

116. Planning guidance on light pollution to local
authorities lacks coherence and force. Light pollution is not
tackled head on in any PPG. The response from the local authorities
to those seeking protection from light nuisance is uneven and
usually unhelpful.

118. Mr Peter Lummis, Lighting Engineer, at Huntingdonshire
DC told us how successful Huntingdonshire had been in implementing
their SPG. There can be no doubt that this is due to the enormous
enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject shown by Mr Lummis,
and the good communication that exists between the Lighting and
the Planning Departments in Huntingdonshire DC. There, planning
applications with lighting schemes are passed to the Lighting
Engineer for examination. More detail may be requested by the
local authority - particularly regarding lighting levels at the
boundary of the site and beyond the boundary. Huntingdonshire
also has in its lighting guidance permissible levels of lighting
according to the zone the premises is located in - this has been
taken from ILE guidance.[173]

119. Mr Coatham of the ILE told us that local authorities
should require applicants "when they are submitting designs
for planning approval, to carry out an impact assessment on the
lighting and that impact assessment should include what the amount
of light going upwards is [ ] they should also be required
to do an impact assessment of the light falling onto properties
around."[174]
Planning conditions can then be attached to the planning permission.

120. Mr Lummis told us that once the building has
been completed he visits the site with the enforcement officer
and a lux meter and confirms whether or not the conditions have
been fully discharged before full planning permission is granted.[175]
Although negotiations were necessary as applicants often submitted
initial applications with unsuitable lighting, Mr Lummis told
us he could not think of any case where negotiation and practical
discussion had not come up with a suitable solution.[176]

121. When asked why all local authorities did not
have the same attitude towards lighting as Huntingdonshire, Mr
Lummis replied that at Huntingdon, lighting engineers worked closely
with the planning department and so could be more closely involved
with planning decisions. Funding is designated to ensure that
planning departments have use of lighting engineer expertise.

122. The Rt Hon Keith Hill MP said "on the whole
the local authorities are not doing as badly as the most pessimistic
observers might expect. Something like 35 per cent of local authorities
have light pollution controls in their planning guidance. The
evidence from the CPRE report is that a further 26 per cent of
authorities are actively involved in bringing forward light pollution
controls in their planning guidance, others are contemplating
it."[177] This
still left 35 per cent of the local authorities CPRE contacted
with no light pollution policies of any kind and no plans to introduce
them.[178] CPRE contacted
49 English planning authorities, and so there is no definitive
figure for the number of UK authorities with light pollution policies.
There is no guarantee that these authorities will create policies
in the near future, and may continue giving consent to planning
applications with the worst type and positioning of luminaires.
Mr Lummis told us: "Unless the planners themselves are either
encouraged one way or formally forced by law to do it, there are
always going to be some who are going to resist and do it their
own way." [179]

123. There are too many local planning authorities
which have not taken the issue of light pollution seriously and
have not included light pollution in their local plans. The Government
must take steps to rectify this. It should have a clear policy
on when Full Cut Off lighting should be used, and we recommend
that this policy is communicated to local authorities.

The most conscientious planning
authority can do nothing about light polluting fixtures installed
before the local authority implemented its light pollution policies.
If a company or individual have fulfilled the planning conditions,
the local authority has no powers of enforcement. Peter Lummis
of Huntingdonshire DC told us "that is the where the big
difficulty is for us as a local authority".[184]
Local authorities can only wait until lighting is replaced and
a new planning application is submitted.

Many types of "problem" exterior lighting
- mainly security and floodlighting - are not considered to be
development and so are not subject to planning permission. Local
authorities have no powers of control.

Light pollution, like noise pollution, travels.
A local authority only has powers of enforcement over buildings
and structures within its area. Many people suffer from glare
and light spill from buildings or sports facilities in neighbouring
districts outside the jurisdiction of the local authority in which
they live.

130. Whilst it has been possible for amateur astronomers
and local authorities to approach individuals and organisations
with light polluting luminaires and persuade them to alter, change
or adapt the fittings, this is not always the case. Mr Lummis
said "some people are very ignorant and they will not work
by negotiation unfortunately; some people only respond to "Thou
shalt" rather than "Would you mind sorting this out
with us?".[185]

131. When asked how Huntingdonshire District Council
deals with neighbouring councils without lighting policies, Mr
Lummis replied "We would have officers who would try to work
and encourage other authorities to take the same steps and the
same attitude as we have. We would always try to do that. It is
difficult."[186]
When asked if there was good co-operation between adjacent local
authorities, he replied "Not as much as there ought to be,
perhaps."[187]

132. Also, observatories, especially those used by
universities funded through the Science Budget and those offering
practical observation experience to schools, have no special protection,
despite their valuable purpose. For example, St Andrews University
has benefited from negotiating with the local Town Council for
the introduction of cut-off lighting, but the observatory is still
affected by the skyglow from Dundee. Dr Hilditch of St Andrews
University believed that the observatory is also likely to be
affected by a new housing development less than a mile away whose
lighting schemes have not been made subject to planning controls.
Likewise, the Royal Astronomical Society told us that Cambridge
University had repeated battles on light pollution issues each
time new developments were at the planning stage.[188]

133. The Government should afford special protection
to observatories, for the same reasons that the UK Government
supports the protection of UK funded observatories in the Canary
Islands. Local authorities should be obliged to consult on planning
applications for developments in the vicinity of observatories,
which should be able to object if the development is likely to
affect their observations. Observatories would be able to register
with their local authority for protection, showing their active
membership or links with local schools as evidence of their importance
to the community.

134. In essence, the Government's current position
is that sufficient guidance on lighting exists in the public domain,
no further controls on the types of lighting systems available
are necessary, and local authorities can control light pollution
through planning controls as they currently exist. We disagree.

135. The Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) was set up
in 1989 to tackle light pollution. It now has 120 officers throughout
the country. Members have spent the last fourteen years attempting
to stem the increase of light pollution. Unlike the Government,
CfDS has been waging an active campaign in the field to educate
local authorities, organisations and individuals on the disadvantages
of light pollution in general, how it can be alleviated and how
controls could be included into local plans and implemented effectively.[189]
And yet light pollution is getting worse. Bob Mizon, Director
of CfDS made a significant analogy when he said of 500w security
lights "They are the new leylandii".[190]

136. Legislation combating the nuisance of Leylandii
has gained Government support. [191]However,
when asked whether light pollution ought to be accorded the same
Government support, the Rt Hon Keith Hill MP said: "Candidly
the answer is no [ ] the point about Leylandii is that I
am very keen about that legislation but it is a very definable
and a very specific nuisance which has highly specific anti-social
effects. With the best will in the world, I do not think that
the same arguments could be deployed about light pollution."[192]
We disagree that light pollution is less serious than the issue
of Leylandii. Light pollution is not only detrimental to the science
of astronomy, but it is wasteful of energy and causes distress
to many individuals.

141. The Government told us that "It is extremely
difficult to design a feasible means of assessing external light
for statutory planning control purposes."[195]
However, if light from a property or structure falls across a
property boundary onto another premises so as to cause a nuisance,
this light can be measured. Evidence from the ILE and Mr Peter
Lummis, lighting engineer for Huntingdonshire District Council,
confirmed that it is possible to do this.[196]
The CIE has also recently published guidance on how such measurements
could be made to assess and control levels of illumination in
cases of obtrusive outdoor lighting.[197]
The CIE described how it was possible to calculate, using computer
programming, the intensity of a proposed light fitting and the
area which will be illuminated by it.[198]
Once the light fitting has been installed, light trespass onto
a boundary, through a window, can be measured using a lux meter.
Mr Lummis also gave the example of how he had assessed how much
light fell from a floodlighting structure onto a neighbouring
chicken farm. Once light levels were assessed, the floodlights
were altered and the levels re-measured.[199]

142. Should it be impossible to measure an obtrusive
light source, DEFRA confirmed that subjective judgments, as is
the case for the nuisance of smell, could also be used without
the need for scientific measurements. There have been two judgments
already based on the subjective opinion of the Judge.[200]
We seen no reason why Environmental Health Officers, with the
relevant training, should not be able to assess light spill and
make a subjective judgment on a case by case basis. Dr Martin
Williams, Head of Air and Environmental Quality Division, DEFRA
confirmed that:

"You are right to imply that there are
existing nuisances classified as statutory nuisances which do
not necessarily have a particularly scientific method of measurement
when they are judged and assessed by environmental health officers.
In that regard, you can mount a very credible argument that light
could be handled in that way."[201]

143. An acceptable level of light for different situations
would have to be agreed, but we are confident that this can be
achieved through consultation with local authorities, interested
parties and the Institution of Lighting Engineers. Mr Williams
confirmed that "the relevant point is that one has to go
through the whole process of agreeing the methods for assessing
light as a nuisance. That may not necessarily mean some very sophisticated
and lengthy and involved scientific method."[202]

144. Whilst we have received several memoranda containing
suggestions for the measurement of skyglow - including star counts
and the use of photographic equipment - PPARC, the Government
and the ILE all agree that it would be difficult to accurately
measure sky glow over a town, city or area of countryside.[203]
However, Mr David Coatham of the ILE confirmed that it was possible
to measure the amount of light being shone above the horizontal
for planning and enforcement purposes:

"Whilst the level of skyglow cannot simply
be measured, an assessment of the level of light going directly
upwards from the luminaires can be calculated from the photometric
data for the specific luminaire at its specified mounting angle.
This can be used to give an indication of the level of direct
light sent up in to the sky and would allow maximum values to
be set."[204]

145. We conclude that the problem of light pollution
can be alleviated without the need for scientific measurement
of sky glow. Sky glow is just one of three types of light pollution,
the cause of which is well known, and is clearly visible - particles
in the air and light shining above the horizontal. Light shining
above the horizontal should be tackled directly by controls on
the direction, position and type and duration of lighting, guidance
on which should be included in the PPG on light pollution we have
recommended.

146. Smell is currently assessed on the subjective
judgment of the Environmental Health Officer - light can be assessed
the same way, and there is legal precedent to show that this judgment
can be made. The Government seems to be using the argument that
measurement of all light pollution is impossible as a reason to
do nothing about it. In the mean time, light pollution is getting
worse. Light trespass and glare affects astronomers, but it
can also affect us all. We are persuaded by the evidence that
light trespass is measurable and controllable. We recommend that
obtrusive light should be made a statutory nuisance.

153. Other countries have used restrictions on
the type and duration of lighting permissible in an attempt to
control light pollution. Measurement of light emission is only
used in the most heavily regulated areas. We believe that the
Government should monitor the situation in the UK carefully over
the next five to ten years. Should the creation of a statutory
nuisance of light, a separate PPG for light pollution and enhanced
guidance to local authorities on the issue of light pollution
not produce a reduction of the current levels of skyglow, the
Government must consider adopting similar legislation to other
countries, to control the types of outside lighting used, and
to ensure that no outdoor lighting shines above the horizontal.
The Government must recognise, as other countries have, that the
night sky needs protecting.